I am the author of the BDS statement. At the time, I thought I was providing background information to a Commissioner, not issuing a public statement. As a result, I'm afraid my last paragraph was a little flip and, may have been misunderstood.

I have spent the last decade and a half working consistently to strengthen the design review process and its associated guidelines. I have continually lobbied for stronger regulation when warranted and achievable. That was the intent here - I had a Commissioner's ear in the context of a specific conversation and made a plug.

I do not align with the comment regarding "City" motivations ("What makes this Character of Terwilliger statement so onerous to the City and OHSU is that it clearly does not endorse the kind of expansion and development that has gone on at OHSU."). I do believe in the cherishable, and protectable, qualities of Terwilliger. As a (now) long-time design regulator, I also know where the weaknesses are vis-a-vis current law.

The Terwilliger Guidelines have some remarkable environmental and poetic qualities. The guidelines document is a wonderful record of its time, which does effectively capture the intent of protecting this singular, magnificent resource. However, it's also got potential problems which will need to be addressed sooner or later.

What I'm alluding to are that aspects of the Terwilliger Guidelines, if tested, would likely be found to be constitutionally deficient and statutorily flawed. A litigationally motivated developer could test a number of these regulations in court, and achieve success having such regulation nullified. In other words, it's just not good law.

We also know much more about environmental and habitat design that could be incorporated into a more modern rendition. Not to mention the environmental conditions that have changed over time since the original regulation was established.

The recent Olmstead conference offered another reminder of the significance of this resource, and the need to fully protect and enhance it. Identifying the potential gap between the existing regulation and current knowledge and aspirations, and the ongoing desire to address that gap, was the only motivation behind that final paragraph.

I hope that clarifies, and I apologize for any confusion. Please feel free to contact me directly, if you'd like to discuss any of this more directly.

Jeff Joslin
Section Manager: Urban Design, Design Review, Landmarks Review
Bureau of Development Services, Land Use Services division
503-823-7705